Pages

June 13, 2008

G70: Reds 3, Red Sox 1

Masterson turned in another "quality start" (6.2-4-3-3-9, 98), but the Sox bats were silent.

Only two Boston runners touched second base, both in the fourth inning (Ellsbury doubled and two outs later, Manny and Lowell singled). Cincinnati's three pitchers did not issue a walk all night. Drew went 0-for-4 and did not get the ball out of the infield.

Tampa Bay beat Florida 7-3 to move 1.5 GB Boston. The Yankees beat Houston 2-1 and are, once again, a season-best two games over .500.

Fresh off a 7-2 homestand that boosted their MLB-best home record to 28-7, the Red Sox hit the road for some more interleague action in Ohio.

Boston leads Tampa Bay in the East by 2.5 games. The Red Sox's largest lead this season has been 3.5 games (May 5-8).

Despite the team's 31-8 record against the NL since the start of 2006, Terry Francona doesn't like the gimmicky mid-season annoyance (that's my description, not his!):

It's not set up fair. You set your team up to play American League baseball and you go and play National League baseball. ... You're asking guys to do things they're not used to doing. I've never quite understood the fairness.

It's the franchise's first trip to Cincinnati since Games 3-4-5 of the 1975 World Series. Boston swept the Reds in three games at Fenway in June 2005 (10-3, 7-0 and 6-1).

Last week, ESPN's Jerry Crasnick wrote a nice overview of the Reds. Cincinnati's BR page is here.

Manny's hamstring troubles may prevent him from playing left field. Sean Casey will start tonight in place of hometown boy Kevin Youkilis.

In Pawtucket, Clay Buchholz explains how he has dropped his arm angle to "not quite three-quarters" to regain consistent command of his fastball.

The Yankees (34-33) were a season-best two games over .500 back on April 23 (12-10). Since then, there have been six occasions when the MFY were one game over .500 -- 12-11, 14-13, 17-16, 28-27, 32-31, 33-32 -- and could have matched that high-water mark, but they always lost the next game. Tonight is their 7th attempt.

I can't fucking believe you said that. I was just gonna comment on how happy I was to hear Tito say that in public, and how it's so amazing how most people have been fooled into liking interleague play. And the first person goes and calls his comments "stupid."

It's very simple, paluka, as L said, why it's unfair. You can't just up and play a bunch of games against teams who play by different rules. But apparently the casual fan likes seeing the different colored hats on the same field or whatever, so the "experiment" goes on....

I agree that interleague play is flawed because of the "some teams play more good teams, some bad" argument. But that's just a further extension of the current scheduling problem of imbalanced schedules.

It's not unfair because the teams play by slightly different rules. Is the World Series unfair?

I'm not really as against interleague as you guys seem to be, but the downsides I see can be pretty huge: What if a pitcher gets injured while batting, because he's not used to it? And, two teams competing in the same division will be facing different caliber teams, most likely, in the NL. The Rays could be facing bad teams, while the Red Sox could be facing really good teams. Or vice versa.

I love seeing the different matchups, but that's about it. Seeing your team facing different pitchers, seeing different players (even if that's what ESPN is for...), etc. "Natural rivalries" are bullshit, but still interesting seeing two teams from the same city or the same state playing against one another. It really needs to be revised. I've mentioned that before. This current, unbalanced schedule isn't exactly a thing of beauty, either.

I'm in an Apple Store in a mall in Peabody, MA... I pulled up cnn.com on an iPod touch and it said that. So sad. He was such a force in the news world, and I always liked watching him on tv. Even though that's as far as it goes, I felt a hit of shock from it. Can't even imagine.

Would you like to see MLB have an AL and NL, both using the same rules, and never play each other until the World Series?

That's the thing I'm hung up on. I like that there's a difference between the two leagues, but you're right, L. The most important games of the season, and the rules are different either home or away.

The logic of using the DH no matter where you are during interleague/world series doesn't make much sense either because it would put a preference on what rules to use, and you'd think to yourself, okay, so they think the DH is the better system, so why doesn't everyone use it?

My opinion is if you abolish the DH, you should try to restructure the leagues too. But of course with that, you're messing with history. But I don't see why the Red Sox and Mets can't play the same amount of games as the Sox and Yankees do, when the Sox and Mets would be playing the same game with the same rules.

I don't know if it's reflected in the overall attendance numbers, but I can imagine that it's nice for an average fan to be able to see the other league's team in their local ballpark once every so often. Say you're a very casual baseball fan who lived in New England as a kid, and now you're a software engineer living in Arizona who hasn't followed baseball in twenty years but thinks the kids should have the experience. The Red Sox coming to play the D-Backs might be the thing that gets you into a seat at the park, and enjoying it might bring you back.

This is probably part of Selig and others' thinking, but there is some merit to it. Here I have the option of going to Oakland, but it's further away and a really crappy facility. It's been a real event when the Sox and Yankees have come to San Francisco the last couple of years. I enjoyed watching the Yanks struggle against the Giants in a way I wouldn't have enjoyed going to see them play the A's.

I think a lot of the unfairness in terms of rules doesn't hold all that much water because the disadvantages apply to both teams. Visiting AL teams are robbed of their DH, but visiting NL teams don't necessarily have the kind of hitter to bring off the bench who can fulfill that role.

The difficulty of schedule arguement is a perfectly good one, however. You can't spread your interleague schedule out enough to make it even. I can see why people get up in arms about it.

A lot is said about the tedium of playing your divisional rivals so much. Do they play each other more than they did when there was no interleague play? Or it is just a proportional difference, i.e. you would play the other non-divisional teams in the same league more before?

The question is whether the novelty is worth the scheduling woes and disparities. I can see both sides, myself. But I am not sure why it's considered such a bloody, evil crime against nature by some. I guess it becomes a lot more irksome if you look at it as a committed fan who wants the best chance for your team to win, and less so when you look at the big picture of the game in general.

One change I'd be in favor of is shaving a week off the season (and perhaps reducing the number of times division teams play each other from 19 to 18). The playoffs are going too far into the Fall now. Is there something magical about the number 162? I think 156 games would fulfill the need for a grueling season. Although -- shit, it would throw a wrench into comparing statistical records. All right, forget that idea.

My opinion is if you abolish the DH, you should try to restructure the leagues too. But of course with that, you're messing with history.

History has already been well messed with.

I'm pretty sure I support radical realignment, mainly to get rid of the odious wild card. And since interleague, there are not 2 different leagues anymore. And there has not been an AL president or NL president for a long time.

A division with Boston and both New York teams would be a lot of fun.

No one would go for 4 divisions of 7-8 teams each, although the AL and NL had 8 teams in one big division for decades. If you shortened the season and added two teams, you could have 8 divisions of 4 teams, with 3 rounds of of playoffs.

I don't know if it's reflected in the overall attendance numbers, but I can imagine that it's nice for an average fan to be able to see the other league's team in their local ballpark once every so often.

Restructuring the whole schedule and changing the rules of play for the casual fan, makes no sense. (And that's assuming you're right, that the casual fan does indeed like IL play, which we don't know.) Baseball is having no problem attracting fans. Attendance is higher than ever. You don't have to change the sport to attract someone who is going to buy, what, 2 tickets a year?

I think a lot of the unfairness in terms of rules doesn't hold all that much water because the disadvantages apply to both teams.

If there are disadvantages to both leagues, the solution is to take away the disadvantages.

I say this all the time, but to me the worst part of IL + unbalanced/divisional schedule is that we hardly see old stalwart AL rivals b/c we're too busy playing the friggin Phillies or whoever. I miss the AL Central.

I happen to like unbalanced/divisional play, but that's just a personal preference, I don't think it's necessary for the game or for the playoffs to be meaningful. If it took getting rid of both to get rid of IL play, then good, get rid of both.

But having both IL play and the unbalanced/divisional schedule is ridiculous.

Also, I think shortening the season by a week to make up for how long the playoffs are now would be good. Why not.

Hi laura, sorry if it seemd a little rude last night, I wasn't quite sure how this site works. Do you meet here during a sox game and follow it together? If so, thats pretty cool. Again sorry if i seemed a little rude.

HaHa, you didn't scare me at all, im sure i will become familiar with the American humor. Unfortunately coming from Ireland, i don't get to see every sox game. Im trying to pick it up on myp3p.eu. I have to admit, sweaty dong is a new one, never heard that before.

Here's a question that may mean nothing to anyone but me. I first discovered JOS when I set up my iGoogle page, and it was one of the options I could load on my page. Now, however, it no longer seems to be updating. (It is still on a game from two days ago.)

1) Tim Russert's death surprised me. I'm no fan of his--politically or media-ly--but very sad news for his family.

2) the Anti-Capitalist Cowbell Collective was announced on the air as having the highest donation for the Buck Dharma (of Blue Oyster Cult) signed cowbell at our local community radio station's fund drive. Still two days to go in the drive, but they're now allowing cumulative donations, so it's more auctiony. We're going to do it! What we're going to do with it is another question entirely.

Tim Russert's death sure as shocked and saddened alot of people. I wasn't very familiar with him, though i do recall watching meet the press when i lived in Boston. He had just returned from Italy, were he was celebrating his son's recent graduation from Boston college. Sympathy goes out to his wife Maureen and son Luke.

It's unfortunate that we are more able to empathize with individual deaths than the mass anonymous (to us) that we (speaking as part of the collective responsibility for U.S. foreign and domestic policies) are responsible for every day.

So ... if people want game threads to stay here from June 17-July 1 (or 2) -- as opposed to ThreadSox or Jere's blog or somewhere else or nowhere -- do any of the regulars want to sign up to moderate comments?

I will not feel bad if no one wants to. It's not a lot of work, but it does take a bit away from watching and commenting like you do now.

Re Tim Russert, I'm sure I'll sound like a total asshole here, but I cannot for the life of me understand what all the fuss is about. People die every day. Did this man actually mean something to everyone, was everyone actually emotionally attached to Tim Russert that they are so blown away by a man's sudden heart attack?

I simply cannot understand it. If you knew someone personally, of course. If you were very attached to someone's work, such as an artist or musician who meant a lot to you, of course.

But a news commenter? It's sad for his family and friends, but many families lost people today, and the day before, and tomorrow, and the day after that.

CBSSportsline: "Moving faster than expected and coming after a rash of blown calls, baseball wants to put replay into effect by August for home run disputes in hopes of fine-tuning the system by the playoffs."

I don't know what it was about Tim Russert that made feel so shocked and saddened, moreso than usual with people on TV, whether I watch them a lot or not. Usually I say ah that's too bad, then move on. I dono. I liked him.

Russert is personal to me, tangentially... I took a class with his son, who is a great, funny guy. Russert was a great friend of Boston College, always attending sporting events, academic events, giving speeches, etc.

I like watching Meet the Press whenever I'm awake on time (ha).

Say what you will about the media, Russert was always hard working, honest, and non-partisan, which is more than you can say for 99% of talking heads.

He was also a big sports guy, so I kind of related to him as a big-time name who had a passion for politics and for sports, same as Olbermann.

Say what you will about the media, Russert was always hard working, honest, and non-partisan

LOL!! Joe, that's hilarious. What a funny joke.

I understand you know his son, and it's perfectly understandable to be moved when someone you know loses their father. But if you're going to say Russert was honest and non-partisan, you're going to make a lot of people laugh very hard.

A lot of people like, what, you, Allan, and 2.2% of the public? He didn't give anyone a free pass, D or R. I know you abstain from American media, but I watched Meet the Press and I can tell you that that's the case.

The funny thing is, there's a bunch of republicans out there somewhere saying the same thing as you about that 'goddamn liberal.'

Yes, L. A man on TV who was named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world, who was extremely famous, and who seemed to be in very good health. It's not every day that one of the '100 most influential people in the world' dies.

Much like Bill O'Reilly considering himself a 'moderate,' and thinking that the 'radical left' is a big problem in America while those on the right really aren't that far out there, if you come from a certain deeply entrenched perspective, you're going to think of everyone as being wrong.

Russert was neither Cronkite nor Murrow, but he was easily one of the best of my generation.

Russert was neither Cronkite nor Murrow, but he was easily one of the best of my generation.

Joe, you are too intelligent to have such ridiculously low standards. It's beneath you.

To be clear, I am not saying I would not be upset if someone famous who meant a lot to me did. When Joni Mitchell dies, a part of myself will go with her. I feel the same way about Howard Zinn, who is elderly. Those people mean something to me personally.

And if Tim Russert meant something to you personally, then of course you will grieve.

But the massive outpouring of emotion over his death does not, IMO, represent that.

I didn't 'cheer for' him, but I respected him, enjoyed watching him (and NBC news in general - I used to be a CNN devotee, but now I'm all about MSNBC), and considered him part of my school's community.

You know what, redsock? Normally, I would tell you to piss off with a b.s. challenge like that, but I'm actually up for it. I'm at the ballpark right now, but starting at around midnight tonight when I get home, I'll get on it.

I doubt I'll find examples of 'bias to the left,' but I wouldn't consider that to be a good thing, anyway.

Because their lives are so empty of real meaning, filled up with vapid consumer culture and celebrity worship, that they confuse sentimentality over the death of a famous person with actual emotion over the death of someone they really knew.

Again, I emphasize that if Russert and his work meant something to you personally, then that's totally different.

Because their lives are so empty of real meaning, filled up with vapid consumer culture and celebrity worship, that they confuse sentimentality over the death of a famous person with actual emotion over the death of someone they really knew.

I was with you for about half of that. To me, when a public figure dies who I admire, it's a way to stop and reflect on life and things that are important to me in a way that I just can't do for every single tragic event that happens in the world. If I did, I'd spend 99.999% of every day terribly sad, because of all the hatred and sadness in the world.

And since we get news from the media, Russert's death is going to be put in front of us a lot, making it seem out of proporation to other news around the world.

They're planning pretty much round-the-clock coverage on MSNBC which I don't exactly agree with. It's kinda like if one of the Red Sox died, they'd cancel a game or two and just sit at the ballpark and talk about him the whole time.

.I was with you for about half of that. To me, when a public figure dies who I admire, it's a way to stop and reflect on life and things that are important to me in a way that I just can't do for every single tragic event that happens in the world. If I did, I'd spend 99.999% of every day terribly sad, because of all the hatred and sadness in the world.

But it's good and it's healthy to grieve and be sad sometimes

Agreed. And one of the things I thought of was his son, which made me think of my father.

Well, to me, when someone says, "European soccer fans are so insane," I take that to mean in comparison to soccer fans elsewhere. When people say "Japanese workers are so disciplined," I assume them to mean in comparison to workers elsewhere. When people say "Canadians are so obsessed with hockey," I assume that to mean, relative to the rest of the world.

Do I think global culture in general is overly obsessed with celebrities as opposed to important issues? Abso-freakin'-lutely. But that's kind of irrelevant to this discussion. It seems to me like this has more to do with personal opinion of the person involved than general cultural principles.

And the irony is, Russert was a newsman, not a movie star or a musician, and despite what Redsock, L, and a few other people think, he was damn good at it - he actually was one of the people putting attention on issues.

What's this mean, Joe? That if you're in the minority, you're automatically wrong?

No, it doesn't. Never said that. You said 'a lot of people would laugh' at my statement that Russert was a hard working journalist, and I said, actually, I really doubt that to be true, depending on what you consider to be 'a lot of people.'

Until it's someone you admire, and then you don't find it so bizarre. You even said it yourself.

YES. And I ALSO said if he meant something personally to you, then this doesn't apply to you.

But you're telling me that all the celebrities that the public goes nuts over, each one of them, means something to them personally? Any famous person, any person on TV, they all have touched the hearts and minds of everyone so much? I' talking about people who have affected my life and entire view of the world. If Tim Russert is that to you, then you have every reason to mourn.

But isn't it more likely that the public at large is just reacting to fame and celebrity and it has nothing to do with anything else but their own empty lives?

I hear my co-workers talk about every famous movie actor as if they know them. Whoever is the flavour of the month, they know and love (or hate, whichever is appropriate) them.

But isn't it more likely that the public at large is just reacting to fame and celebrity and it has nothing to do with anything else but their own empty lives?

It's possible, although I honestly think that most people aren't reacting on a very personal, mournful level to this. I think a lot of people are saying, "Wow! someone who is extremely influential and famous died. This is not something you see every day." That's a different thing all together.

My two cents on Russert: what scared me most is that he was only a few years older than I am. PErhaps that is a bit self-centered, but it scared the shit out of me.

It's little connections like that that people reflect on when a prominent public figure dies. You can't spend your whole entire life being shocked and saddened when someone your age dies, but it's healthy to think about that from time to time.

No, it doesn't. Never said that. You said 'a lot of people would laugh' at my statement that Russert was a hard working journalist, and I said, actually, I really doubt that to be true, depending on what you consider to be 'a lot of people.'

I mentioned that, too. I think most people will think it's sad, have a moment to reflect on him, and then move on. I'm curious as to what the reaction to be if Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh were to kick the bucket.

Do I think global culture in general is overly obsessed with celebrities as opposed to important issues? Abso-freakin'-lutely. But that's kind of irrelevant to this discussion.

To me it's precisely relevant to this discussion, because I think that's what most people are doing when they ooh and aah over Russert's death.

It seems to me like this has more to do with personal opinion of the person involved than general cultural principles.

Then you're not reading what I'm writing.

I do think Russert was a biased hack. You disagree. That's a separate issue. That's irrelevant.

I'd be saying the same thing about any celebrity death that provoked this kind of shock and horror.

I think the outpouring of supposed grief (it's not real grief, it's sentimental mawk) over Russert's death is about celebrity worship.

And the irony is, Russert was a newsman, not a movie star or a musician,

Why is that ironic?

and despite what Redsock, L, and a few other people think

Joe, you haven't the slightest idea if only "Redsock, L and a few others" think this. Millions of people might agree with this. How would you know?

If you go by media reaction, every person in the world mourned Ronald Reagan's death and thought he was a hero. I can assure you, millions of people felt otherwise. You can't be so myopic as to think you know what people are really thinking and feeling based on mainstream media reaction, can you?

My two cents on Russert: what scared me most is that he was only a few years older than I am. PErhaps that is a bit self-centered, but it scared the shit out of me.

You look at someone who is on TV regularly, and he just looks like a regular guy who's in the middle of his life and death is a long ways away from him. Then you look around your own life and your own families and friends, and you see the same thing. And you reflect upon it.

(Example: Co-workers who I hear discussing how much they like (or disapprove of) the names of J-Lo's twins. Or the messenger in the elevator today who glanced up at the annoying news screen and quickly got on his cellpone to tell his boss that R. Kelly was cleared of child porn charges this afternoon.)

Why is that ironic?'Cause most of the people who grouse and lament about our society's celeb-obsessed culture state that we care about celeb non-issues at the expense of important global issues. Russert was a guy who most people considered to be very good at talking about hard issues. There weren't any Britney Spears updates on MTP.

If Masterson gets out of this inning without allowing anymore runs, and hands it to the bullpen, he gets credited with a Quality Start. We've certainly banged on about this before. Seems like a pretty average start to me. The Red Sox side of the scoreboard makes Masterson's outing less good-quality.